sinna manni

Ian Healy, the former Australian wicketkeeper, probably believes he has come
far, indeed further than anyone before him has, by claiming that banning
Muttiah Muralitharan from bowling his doosra does not go far enough - his
entire bowling action should be re-examined.
Healy obviously believes that the most "tested" test player in history has
not been tested enough. Or that those who did the testing were incompetents.
Healy says, "It's a bit of a shame, the public wants to know how the rest of
his action stands up."
Whenever someone finds it imperative to cower behind the generality of
things such as "the public", I tell myself, "this guy doesn't have the balls
to stand on his own two feet". What is this "public" made of? Racist
Aussies? Did Healy do a head count of public opinion before he appointed
himself as the spokesman for the public? Has he asked "the public" if it
wants all actions of all bowlers of all countries of all class also tested
to see if they "stand up"?
The truth is, Healy can't stomach the fact that Murali got to 520 before
Warne. Perhaps the fact that Murali is black has something to do with it as
well. We can't say for sure. But I would not give Healy the benefit of the
doubt. He's an Aussie. And many Australians, our cricketers will testify,
operate as though prejudice is their defining ethnic trait.
And who the hell is John Howard? Mother of all third umpires? No, he is not.
He is the prime minister of a country whose population is largely made up of
the descendents of illegal immigrants whose racism only just stopped short
of driving to extinction the native peoples of that continent.
For the record the way these people are treated by Howard's government, even
today, makes all these horror stories about Zimbabwean-style racism seem
rather hypocritical.
Stewart McGill, before he boycotted the Australian tour of Zimbabwe, ought
to have refused to play for Australia, a nation where racism is not just a
one-off Darrel Lehman kind of thing but an institutionalised fact!
Under the circumstances, I am astounded Ian Healy has not asked for a
re-examination of Australia's status as a civilised nation. Shameful, Ian,
shameful!

rogerd77

Ian Healy, the former Australian wicketkeeper, probably believes he has come
far, indeed further than anyone before him has, by claiming that banning
Muttiah Muralitharan from bowling his doosra does not go far enough - his
entire bowling action should be re-examined.
Healy obviously believes that the most "tested" test player in history has
not been tested enough. Or that those who did the testing were incompetents.
Healy says, "It's a bit of a shame, the public wants to know how the rest of
his action stands up."
Whenever someone finds it imperative to cower behind the generality of
things such as "the public", I tell myself, "this guy doesn't have the balls
to stand on his own two feet". What is this "public" made of? Racist
Aussies? Did Healy do a head count of public opinion before he appointed
himself as the spokesman for the public? Has he asked "the public" if it
wants all actions of all bowlers of all countries of all class also tested
to see if they "stand up"?
The truth is, Healy can't stomach the fact that Murali got to 520 before
Warne. Perhaps the fact that Murali is black has something to do with it as
well. We can't say for sure. But I would not give Healy the benefit of the
doubt. He's an Aussie. And many Australians, our cricketers will testify,
operate as though prejudice is their defining ethnic trait.
And who the hell is John Howard? Mother of all third umpires? No, he is not.
He is the prime minister of a country whose population is largely made up of
the descendents of illegal immigrants whose racism only just stopped short
of driving to extinction the native peoples of that continent.
For the record the way these people are treated by Howard's government, even
today, makes all these horror stories about Zimbabwean-style racism seem
rather hypocritical.
Stewart McGill, before he boycotted the Australian tour of Zimbabwe, ought
to have refused to play for Australia, a nation where racism is not just a
one-off Darrel Lehman kind of thing but an institutionalised fact!
Under the circumstances, I am astounded Ian Healy has not asked for a
re-examination of Australia's status as a civilised nation. Shameful, Ian,
shameful!

shariq_tariq

Why is the race card being played here? It has and should have nothing
to do with the legality of Murali's bowling. I find my fellow
subcontinental compatriots' behaviour quite disingenuous as far as
tackling this issue is concerned. Let me remind you that Murali has
not been banned from bowling altogether, but has been told to not bowl
the doosra because it exceeds the parameters of legality ascribed by
and agreed upon the ICC and its constituents

Now that Murali has been found in violation they are howling for a
change. Sorry but that's not how things work - at least not in real
life. Making this change to accomodate Murali is not only wrong but it
is unfair on all those who are supposed to adhere to cricketing rules.

Even though I disagree with the year ban if Murali is again reported
within the next 12 months I think it is a step in the right direction.
Eventually the power to determine the legality of the ball should be
put in the hands of the umpire who shoud call it just like he calls
bowlers for overstepping, exceeding the number of bouncers per over,
running onto the crease, bowling beyond the reach of the batsmen, etc.
Hell with this slow motion mumbo jumbo that Steve "Three Blind Mice"
Bucknor suggests

Shariq

peter terry

You may have a point to make and indeed I support cohesive well fomulated
arguement, you speak of Healy etc and that is your opinion and proceed on to
say What is this "public" made of? Racist Aussies? Where does that come
from? why introduce racism, has Healy mentioned race or is this you cowering
behind the same generalism you accuse others of using? Who the hell is John
Howard? you got that right he is the PM, not not a third umpire but he was
asked for his opinion and he is right, Murali's doosa has been found to be
illegal, that is a fact. Population largely made up of "descendants of
illegal immigrants? that is such a weird statement to make, can you qualify
that? are you saying Cook and Phillip and their cronies were illegal
immigrants?
Now you speak of
"For the record the way these people are treated by Howard's government,
even
today, makes all these horror stories about Zimbabwean-style racism seem
rather hypocritical"

Please provide evidence of racism in Australia today, not generalities but
racism by the current Government as you have stated.
Stuart Magill um whats your point??
Darren Lehman not Darrel, or is that another generalisation,
"institutional fact" um what??
I am astounded that people such as yourselves generalise so much without
regard for the facts.
Shame roger, shame.

peter terry

news:<40acaac6$1@news.comindico.com.au>...


You sir make absolute sense, nothing to do with racism and those that use
it should be ashamed, Murali is very talented indeed but as you point out
his "doosra" has been called as illegal and its further use will bring about
a ban. I think the reason why Murali was scientifically tested in Perth was
that not even the umpires could agree on the legality or otherwise of his
bowling.
Regards

rogerd77

The original article doesn't questions ICC's decision to ban Murali's
"Doosra" delivery. The original article highlights the motivation
behind Ian Healy's and John Howard's remarks about Murali's bowling.
John Howard is a racist, that's an accepetd fact.

shariq_tariq

Let's assume he is racist - can you tell me what that has to do with
ICC concluding the the extensive study by biomechanics experts at U of
Western Australia is enough evidence to determine that Murali chucks
his doosra. Based on these findings the ICC haa told him not the bowl
this particular delivery and if he does, face to consequences. So how
does "racist" John Howard change the equation in this whole matter?

Has John Howard manifested any racist tendencies outside this matter?

Shariq

peter terry

What is it you are saying? that the article says JH is a racist or you say
JH is a racist, um and what is the accepted fact?

peter terry

news:<2c034950.0405201945.59855ae2@posting.google. com>...

No, quite the opposite in fact. It is so sad that people who criticise an
action by a person of another race would be branded racist, show the
immaturity of some dont you think Shariq?

peter terry

What article do you refer to rogerd? a reference would be nice.